Journal of periodontology · 2022
Reliability assessment of the classification for facial peri-implant soft tissue dehiscence/deficiencies (PSTDs): A multi-center inter-rater agreement study of different skill-level practitioners.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Barootchi Shayan, Mancini Leonardo, Heck Teresa, Zucchelli Giovanni, Stefanini Martina, Kazarian Emilia, Rasperini Giulio, Wang Hom-Lay, Tavelli Lorenzo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Along with the popularity of dental implants, implant esthetic complications are also on the rise. Recently a classification was proposed to comprehensively evaluate these conditions, with the definition of peri-implant soft tissue dehiscence/deficiencies (PSTDs). The aim of this article was therefore to test the inter-examiner agreement when utilizing the established rubrics among 25 standardized cases and 34 clinicians of different skill levels.
METHODS: Twelve periodontal residents, 12 general dentists, and 10 periodontists participated in this study. All examiners were provided with photographs of 25 single PSTDs and asked to rate all cases based on the proposed classification at a single timepoint. Variance components analysis was conducted with multilevel regression fit in a Bayesian framework to obtain uncertainty intervals for fractional variance contributions and interclass correlation values (ICC) to assess the agreement in the rating of all cases, among all examiners, different skill-level practitioners, and to compare their responses relative to the judgment of a gold standard examiner.
RESULTS: Overall, the results showed reproducible and consistent responses among the 34 examiners, and in each subgroup of skill-level, comparable to that of the gold examiner. Nevertheless, periodontists and residents were more likely to agree with the response of the gold standard examiner in their assessments of class and subclass of the PSTDs.
CONCLUSIONS: The proposed PSTD classification showed reproducible assessments among all examiners, and between examiners of the same skill-level. The response of the gold standard examiner was more in line with the assessment of the periodontists and periodontal residents.
METHODS: Twelve periodontal residents, 12 general dentists, and 10 periodontists participated in this study. All examiners were provided with photographs of 25 single PSTDs and asked to rate all cases based on the proposed classification at a single timepoint. Variance components analysis was conducted with multilevel regression fit in a Bayesian framework to obtain uncertainty intervals for fractional variance contributions and interclass correlation values (ICC) to assess the agreement in the rating of all cases, among all examiners, different skill-level practitioners, and to compare their responses relative to the judgment of a gold standard examiner.
RESULTS: Overall, the results showed reproducible and consistent responses among the 34 examiners, and in each subgroup of skill-level, comparable to that of the gold examiner. Nevertheless, periodontists and residents were more likely to agree with the response of the gold standard examiner in their assessments of class and subclass of the PSTDs.
CONCLUSIONS: The proposed PSTD classification showed reproducible assessments among all examiners, and between examiners of the same skill-level. The response of the gold standard examiner was more in line with the assessment of the periodontists and periodontal residents.